Are these two sentences examples of a restrictive relative clause (1) and a non restrictive relative clause (2), from "which"?

1.The problem is predicting which way she'll turn.
2.The problem is escalating, which I predicted from the start.
1 2 3
Adonica861.The problem is predicting which way she'll turn.
In my opinion, "predicting which way she'll turn" is a gerund phrase, and complements the linking verb.
I think "which" is an adverb here, rather than a pronoun.

I don't know where she will go. "She will go where" is a clause, but "where" is not its subject.

These are complements.

Edit. I'm probably going too far in saying that "which way she'll turn" is the equivalent of "where she'll turn," but I take both underlined terms as adverbial. "Which" is probably an adjective, but clearly not a relative pronoun.
Adonica862.The problem is escalating, which I predicted from the start.
I'll probably blow this one!

I think the clause is "I predicted which from the start," making "which" the direct object.

I think this clause modifies the entire main clause, rather than a particular word. I'd call it an appositive, rather than a relative clause.
Adonica86Are these two sentences examples of a restrictive relative clause (1) and a non restrictive relative clause (2), from "which"?

1.The problem is predicting which way she'll turn.
This is NOT a relative construction. The underlined expression is a non-finite subordinate clause functioning as a predicative complement (PC) of "be" - it relates to the subject "The problem" in its specifying sense. The PC clause is headed by the verb "predicting" which has the noun phrase "which way she'll turn" as its object. Tucked inside that noun phrase is the embedded subordinate content clause "she'll turn" is functioning as complement of "which way".

Adonica862.The problem is escalating, which I predicted from the start.
This is a relative construction. The underlined relative clause has the clause "The problem is escalating" as its antecedent - a possibility that is found only with the supplementary (non-defining or non-restrictive) type.

BillJ
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
The second sentence has indeed a nonrestrictive relative clause. There is no relative clause in the first sentence as which isn't a relative pronoun in it. Which begins an indirect question in sentence 1. The direct question would be: Which way will she turn? Many European grammarians call which an interrogative pronoun in that context but I think in the Anglo-Saxon world the term "interrogative adjective" may be more appropriate as which is followed by a noun (way) in the sentence.

This confusion in terminology probably results from the fact that in many languages the word for "pronoun" does not contain the word "noun" at all, which in turn means that in those languages people don't think that pronouns are used instead of nouns. Thus differences in terminology have developed over centuries. I'm just thinking to myself about this. There must be another logical reason if I'm wrong.

CB
Cool BreezeThe second sentence has indeed a nonrestrictive relative clause.
Hi, CB.
I know you believe in the old fashioned clause with a subject and a verb, because you've said as much.

What do you consider to be the subject and the verb of the nonrestrictive relative clause which you find in the second sentence?

Showing my gratitude in advance: Emotion: beer Emotion: beer.

Best regards, - A.
Hi Avangi

I just got up and was somewhat surprised that there weren't more replies to this thread. I had a good night's sleep after watching Vancouver Canucks beat San Jose Sharks on TV.

"The problem is escalating, which I predicted from the start."

In old-fashioned European analysis, which is a relative pronoun which refers to the entire main clause, in other words, the main clause is its antecedent. Which is also the object of predicted.

I is the subject of the relative clause and predicted is the finite verb. It is also the only verb in the relative clause.

I don't think a single Scandinavian grammarian will disagree with me on this. This is how I was taught to analyze a relative clause like the one above when I was a schoolboy, and the same analysis applied at Helsinki University. It is also accepted by the grammarians whose works I have for reference.

Emotion: beerEmotion: beer
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Thanks. I agree.

I'm on coffee tonight. Emotion: beer Emotion: coffee

Best wishes, - A.
Cool BreezeWhich is also the object of predicted.
That's not necessarily the case. When the antecedent is a clause, the interpretation of the relative word is not so straightforward. If we insert the antecedent in the relative clause, two possibilities emerge:

1. "I predicted from the start (that) the problem would escalate". [content clause as complement of "predicted"]

2. "I predicted an escalation of the problem from the start". [noun phrase as object of "predicted"]

Thus we can interpret "which" as a content clause as complement, or as a noun phrase as object.

BillJ
BillJ
Cool BreezeWhich is also the object of predicted.
That's not necessarily the case.
In the grammar I use, it is extremely clearly the case.

CB
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Show more